How about the Walton clan? Granted, they inherited their wealth from Sam Walton, but he was on the list himself, and passed his fortune to his heirs (which is how the system works).
Oprah and Sam Walton both grew up poor, though in different environments.
I worked at after-school jobs when I was fifteen, I never had to get permission from my school. I never told them a thing about what I do in my own time. I certainly worked summer jobs when I was that age, which the school also had no knowledge of.
What point are you actually trying to make with the 'planning sex' comment? It doesn't matter what month I'm born in, if I have a paper route before/after school, or pick produce at a local farm over the summer.
Thanks for the breakdown of all that. I guess I'm coming at it from the perspective of a small business owner, whose customers are mostly small businesses themselves.They don't have investors, they have debt. Even the ones that are fully incorporated have debt that either they carry personally, or it is paid by the business but comes out of the monthly profit, which is their monthly income. I'm speaking about dentists, a car repair shop, an appliance shop, a candy shop, real estate offices, and various home products specialists (windows, furniture, glass, ornaments, etc.).
These people are putting their own money into their business, just as I am. The owner is the investor and manager both. I'll admit that while I understand the situation you lay out, with investors owning someone's business, I don't get why someone like me would want to do that. I run my business the way I think it should be run, and I pay the price if I'm wrong. Besides that, I haven't seen a business established like that. Most of my customers aren't big enough to warrant that, I guess. The ones that are bigger are already big companies with a board of directors, I guess. I don't know their specifics. Sorry if this isn't as clear in words as it is in my head.
Anyway, it's late, and I'm sleepy, so I'll be going now. Thanks again for the explanation.
Quite honestly, I agree with everything you say in the first three paragraphs. I will gladly admit I have changed my mind on subjects several times from these online discussions, just as you say you have. The whole point here is to hear opposing views, especially is response to my views, and see what better understanding I can glean from them.
I apologize for causing a sidetrack of your discussion. It was an honest question to flesh out your original post. (See my other response to your other response to me.)
And, yes, I may have put too much of myself into my responses to Rhywden, but I do tend to fight back when someone attacks me. Especially if they completely mischaracterize my post, and then say something like "Because I can't see it going anywhere else." It isn't my fault he can't see someone else's viewpoint. Then to fail to read my next post and attack me again, yes I got a bit snarky in my reply. I'm not asking you to pick sides, but I don't think Rhywden made very good posts.
Please don't read judgement into that question. It is simply something I always wonder when I hear statements like yours.
It's a transparent attempt to change an abstract discussion about labor relations into a personal matter. This is the kind of tactic used by someone who dislikes the point that was made but acknowledges that he has no real counter-point. It is strongly indicative of a weak position on your part. That you are at least being polite about it does not change this.
There is a reason you're catching flak for it in several other comments. Rhywden explained it succinctly.
So then, do you have a solid reason why you disagree with what I said?
When did I say I don't agree with what you said? I told Rhywden* your second paragraph is better than what he wrote, and I thought it laid it out quite nicely.
As to your first paragraph, I've heard it before and don't quite agree with it, from my own perspective, but can certainly see why you consider it to be how right-wing politicians, talk show hosts, and their followers think about it.
Personally, I wish leaders on both sides were willing to look at situations from the other's perspective. I have that wish for all sorts of opposing groups in this world, from politics and social problems, to business, to international disputes.
It wasn't an attempt to change the conversation, it was an attempt to see where you are coming from. It's like my response to SynFlood, one of the workers in this labor dispute, asking for some specific information including if he is a local of the country. Yes, the details may change how I view certain statements, but they won't actually change what I think of your argument. If I agree with it, I still will, and if I think it's wrong, I will explain why, no matter what your background.
Anyway, thanks for the response.
*PS. Back to the Rhywden angle. I gigged him twice for not reading or understanding what I wrote, and simply reacting from his own narrow viewpoint. Although you are also misreading my intent (that is why I spelled it out, sorry that didn't work), you are at least responding with an open mind. That is appreciated.
It's one of the things I hear people talking about as they debate unions and companies. An anti-union guy will say "All unions want (some situation), which will (have bad consequences)." Then a pro-union guy will say "No one wants that, you are making it up."
That is basically what Joining was talking about, and saying the anti-union guys are lying about what unions want. But he says he would rather no one work than someone make too much money. I can't help it if you think it's a bad example, it's the one he exemplified.
As to large or small businesses, it isn't the costs that I'm talking about, it is the fairness of distribution of profit. I don't know whether your parents had employees, or if they treated and paid them well. But I will assume they had several employees that were treated and paid fairly. The employees worked hard each week, and did a great job, which kept customers happy and made sure they returned. But the part of the business that keeps people up at night is worrying about the future.
If your parents' business had failed, who would be worse off? The now-former employees would get new jobs. Your parents would undoubtedly have been in debt, and would have had a problem getting a job commensurate with their experience and financial needs. They bore all the risk, the employees bore none, unless they were also investors, which is unlikely. So, at the end of the year, when a decent profit is on the books, did your parents put a piece of it in the bank for future business needs, then split the rest evenly among everyone? Or did they give themselves a larger piece, and give the employees a $100 Christmas bonus?
Large corporations like GM or Goldman Sachs don't have executives in that position, of facing personal ruin if the business fails. So I don't have a problem if their salary and compensation was limited somehow. But most companies in the country are not in that group. Most are small businesses that were started by the people running them, or their parents or grand-parents. They are companies that someone puts their blood, sweat, and tears into every day to keep it going, and those people want to enjoy their profits at the end. If they get the same profit as the guy they hire to sweep the floors, they might as well have gotten a job sweeping someone else's floor.
OK. Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't trying to say all unions are trying to shut down all business, but that Joining said he wishes they would.
This is one item I have seen/heard anti-unions commenters make, that unions would rather no one worked than have someone making too much money. Joining would call that a lie, but his statement says he would choose that outcome. (Maybe he didn't realize what he was actually writing, but I have to take his comment as he wrote it.) That's why I said not all the 'lies' he hears are actually lies.
As for your breakdown of business costs, I don't agree on each point, but my only problem is one I see generally. It applies to large corporations with recruited CEOs and other officers, but is not well suited to apply to smaller companies, or a larger company that is still under the control of the guy who stated it.
No, I wasn't commenting on that. Sorry if it came across wrong. It was that you accidentally used the word "descent" in place of "decent". I thought it was funny considering the topic is working at a high elevation. That's why I said you would have to make a descent to find a decent place to eat.
Did you grow up there? Or did you move from someplace warmer? I grew up in Michigan where it snows half the year, but not quite as cold as Canada is. I moved to a warmer place a couple decades ago, and don't plan to ever move back. There would have to be a huge bonus for me to work in a cold area again.
Most of the workers at ALMA probably didn't grow up in year round freezing conditions, and so don't want to work in freezing conditions for the same rate as they could get in warmer places. So, yes, there has to be a bonus to get them to work there, because otherwise they would just work at similar paying jobs in warmer areas.
Quite honestly, I think you replied to the wrong post with this. Nothing you say goes against anything I said to Joining. Actually, all I really said was that people don't all think like he does. I said nothing about what I think about fair wages or corporation financing.
Someone must have missed the part where I specifically state:
Please don't read judgement into that question. It is simply something I always wonder when I hear statements like yours.
Oh, no, you state you did read that, and just can't figure out what it means. You think you have the only valid viewpoint in this matter, so anyone else who doesn't immediately agree with yours is not only wrong, but subversive and deceitful as well. Gee, I've never come across your kind in these forums. (That last sentence is sarcasm, in case your view is too narrow to recognize it.)
As for causality, for all we know, he owns a business with 20 employees that he treats well, and thinks other business owners should do the same.
In fact his last remark of:
The fact is, an employer and an employee inherently have competing interests. Negotiating is a perfectly valid way to resolve competing interests by seeking a middle ground acceptable to both.
shows he has a deeper grasp of the situation than you apparently do. He at least isn't simply jumping on someone he may or may not agree with, based on a narrow mindset based on his own misperceived self-image, unlike you rhywden.
So, you are saying you would prefer everyone to not have a job, than for most people to have a job but with some people making a lot more money than others.
There aren't as many lies told as you think. Some are valid critiques of viewpoints similar to yours.
Thank you for the information SynFlood. Mind if I ask a few questions?
1. What type of jobs are these? Someone above mentioned "minimum wage technician job", but I don't think he knows what jobs are actually in dispute here. Are these advanced jobs maintaining the equipment, or manual labor wrench turning and meter reading jobs?
2. What is the comparable pay scale of similar jobs in other areas in Chile? Obviously there needs to be a bonus for working up there, freezing you ass off, but we don't know what the base salary for Chile's tech workers are.
3. Personally, are you a local there in Chile or neighboring country, or are you from North America, Europe, etc, and moved there to work in this project? What about the other workers; roughly what percentage are local or foreign?
I just now read the article linked, and see nothing at all as far as details. Your input would be greatly appreciated.
When change happens the market does not always react the way that it did.
FIFY. I know most of us are used to the perfect grammer and sintax of the vast majority of Slashdot postings, but sometimes the unwashed masses manage to sneak pst the gatehouse.
Why do you have to bring Outlook into this conversation? What did Outlook ever do to you, anyway?
Not quite. Those numbers are for year-end employment. You would have to go back to 2008 to see how many people worked for the federal government under Bush, since I doubt many were added in the first 20 days of 2009.
So that changes to:
2008: 4,206,000 2011: 4,403,000
There seems to be an increase of nearly 200,000 in President Obama's first three years. In fact, most of the increase seems to have happened almost immediately after he came into office, if 2009 had an increase of 224,000 from the previous year. So federal employment has fallen since the massive increase after Obama took office, but is still higher than under Bush.
Second, government employment has dropped under Obama.
So you are saying that there are fewer federal government employees working for the United States government now than when President Obama took office.
Do you have the facts to back that up? Because I have found sites that show that is not correct.
I think you need to clarify that in year 2013 words like "ultra conservative" in respect to US politics are fucking worthless.
Don't tell me that, you moron, tell the hero of the left, Julian Assange. He is the one that made the statement, I'm just letting you know what he said.
But really, you just can't accept that someone who cares so much about the world (Mr. Assange) would actually praise someone not of the far left. The truth is obvious in your screed. "Not by my definition of ultra-conservative, those damn racist neocons."
Clarification that only an "ultra conservative" would considered ending the TSA, rolling back the state security apparatus, and ending our foreign campaigns of conquest, war, and sabotauge, ending the war on drugs, common sense, and most other gross abuses of state authority.
The Progressives who have held power for at least four years haven't done so, have they? The Democrats are worse than the Republicans were, with increased drone strikes, increased spying, increased TSA presence. You have to accept reality at some point in your life, why not try it right now.
For what it's worth, I voted for Obama in 2008, for several reasons, and last year voted Green Party for a very specific reason. If you weren't so obviously closed-minded, you could vote outside your narrow view as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Is Oprah on there? Yes she is.
How about the Walton clan? Granted, they inherited their wealth from Sam Walton, but he was on the list himself, and passed his fortune to his heirs (which is how the system works).
Oprah and Sam Walton both grew up poor, though in different environments.
I worked at after-school jobs when I was fifteen, I never had to get permission from my school. I never told them a thing about what I do in my own time. I certainly worked summer jobs when I was that age, which the school also had no knowledge of.
What point are you actually trying to make with the 'planning sex' comment? It doesn't matter what month I'm born in, if I have a paper route before/after school, or pick produce at a local farm over the summer.
"Of age" doesn't necessarily mean 18 years old.
Fair enough. No hard feelings here. Hopefully we can have more productive discussions on other articles down the road.
Thanks for the breakdown of all that. I guess I'm coming at it from the perspective of a small business owner, whose customers are mostly small businesses themselves.They don't have investors, they have debt. Even the ones that are fully incorporated have debt that either they carry personally, or it is paid by the business but comes out of the monthly profit, which is their monthly income. I'm speaking about dentists, a car repair shop, an appliance shop, a candy shop, real estate offices, and various home products specialists (windows, furniture, glass, ornaments, etc.).
These people are putting their own money into their business, just as I am. The owner is the investor and manager both. I'll admit that while I understand the situation you lay out, with investors owning someone's business, I don't get why someone like me would want to do that. I run my business the way I think it should be run, and I pay the price if I'm wrong. Besides that, I haven't seen a business established like that. Most of my customers aren't big enough to warrant that, I guess. The ones that are bigger are already big companies with a board of directors, I guess. I don't know their specifics. Sorry if this isn't as clear in words as it is in my head.
Anyway, it's late, and I'm sleepy, so I'll be going now. Thanks again for the explanation.
Quite honestly, I agree with everything you say in the first three paragraphs. I will gladly admit I have changed my mind on subjects several times from these online discussions, just as you say you have. The whole point here is to hear opposing views, especially is response to my views, and see what better understanding I can glean from them.
I apologize for causing a sidetrack of your discussion. It was an honest question to flesh out your original post. (See my other response to your other response to me.)
And, yes, I may have put too much of myself into my responses to Rhywden, but I do tend to fight back when someone attacks me. Especially if they completely mischaracterize my post, and then say something like "Because I can't see it going anywhere else." It isn't my fault he can't see someone else's viewpoint. Then to fail to read my next post and attack me again, yes I got a bit snarky in my reply. I'm not asking you to pick sides, but I don't think Rhywden made very good posts.
Please don't read judgement into that question. It is simply something I always wonder when I hear statements like yours.
It's a transparent attempt to change an abstract discussion about labor relations into a personal matter. This is the kind of tactic used by someone who dislikes the point that was made but acknowledges that he has no real counter-point. It is strongly indicative of a weak position on your part. That you are at least being polite about it does not change this.
There is a reason you're catching flak for it in several other comments. Rhywden explained it succinctly.
So then, do you have a solid reason why you disagree with what I said?
When did I say I don't agree with what you said? I told Rhywden* your second paragraph is better than what he wrote, and I thought it laid it out quite nicely.
As to your first paragraph, I've heard it before and don't quite agree with it, from my own perspective, but can certainly see why you consider it to be how right-wing politicians, talk show hosts, and their followers think about it.
Personally, I wish leaders on both sides were willing to look at situations from the other's perspective. I have that wish for all sorts of opposing groups in this world, from politics and social problems, to business, to international disputes.
It wasn't an attempt to change the conversation, it was an attempt to see where you are coming from. It's like my response to SynFlood, one of the workers in this labor dispute, asking for some specific information including if he is a local of the country. Yes, the details may change how I view certain statements, but they won't actually change what I think of your argument. If I agree with it, I still will, and if I think it's wrong, I will explain why, no matter what your background.
Anyway, thanks for the response.
*PS. Back to the Rhywden angle. I gigged him twice for not reading or understanding what I wrote, and simply reacting from his own narrow viewpoint. Although you are also misreading my intent (that is why I spelled it out, sorry that didn't work), you are at least responding with an open mind. That is appreciated.
It's one of the things I hear people talking about as they debate unions and companies. An anti-union guy will say "All unions want (some situation), which will (have bad consequences)." Then a pro-union guy will say "No one wants that, you are making it up."
That is basically what Joining was talking about, and saying the anti-union guys are lying about what unions want. But he says he would rather no one work than someone make too much money. I can't help it if you think it's a bad example, it's the one he exemplified.
As to large or small businesses, it isn't the costs that I'm talking about, it is the fairness of distribution of profit. I don't know whether your parents had employees, or if they treated and paid them well. But I will assume they had several employees that were treated and paid fairly. The employees worked hard each week, and did a great job, which kept customers happy and made sure they returned. But the part of the business that keeps people up at night is worrying about the future.
If your parents' business had failed, who would be worse off? The now-former employees would get new jobs. Your parents would undoubtedly have been in debt, and would have had a problem getting a job commensurate with their experience and financial needs. They bore all the risk, the employees bore none, unless they were also investors, which is unlikely. So, at the end of the year, when a decent profit is on the books, did your parents put a piece of it in the bank for future business needs, then split the rest evenly among everyone? Or did they give themselves a larger piece, and give the employees a $100 Christmas bonus?
Large corporations like GM or Goldman Sachs don't have executives in that position, of facing personal ruin if the business fails. So I don't have a problem if their salary and compensation was limited somehow. But most companies in the country are not in that group. Most are small businesses that were started by the people running them, or their parents or grand-parents. They are companies that someone puts their blood, sweat, and tears into every day to keep it going, and those people want to enjoy their profits at the end. If they get the same profit as the guy they hire to sweep the floors, they might as well have gotten a job sweeping someone else's floor.
Ahh. Touché.
OK. Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't trying to say all unions are trying to shut down all business, but that Joining said he wishes they would.
This is one item I have seen/heard anti-unions commenters make, that unions would rather no one worked than have someone making too much money. Joining would call that a lie, but his statement says he would choose that outcome. (Maybe he didn't realize what he was actually writing, but I have to take his comment as he wrote it.) That's why I said not all the 'lies' he hears are actually lies.
As for your breakdown of business costs, I don't agree on each point, but my only problem is one I see generally. It applies to large corporations with recruited CEOs and other officers, but is not well suited to apply to smaller companies, or a larger company that is still under the control of the guy who stated it.
No, I wasn't commenting on that. Sorry if it came across wrong. It was that you accidentally used the word "descent" in place of "decent". I thought it was funny considering the topic is working at a high elevation. That's why I said you would have to make a descent to find a decent place to eat.
Thanks for the information, SynFlood. Hope it works out well for you guys.
Maybe you should read my last sentence again to see that I actually didn't miss it.
Wow, double fail.
Read my sentence after I quoted myself. Then read the sentence after that one.
Finally, read the next two. (Here's a hint, one of them is inside a parenthesis.)
-
I'll explain later what the qualifier in "a deeper grasp" means, since you seem even more confused by that, which hardly seems possible.
Did you grow up there? Or did you move from someplace warmer? I grew up in Michigan where it snows half the year, but not quite as cold as Canada is. I moved to a warmer place a couple decades ago, and don't plan to ever move back. There would have to be a huge bonus for me to work in a cold area again.
Most of the workers at ALMA probably didn't grow up in year round freezing conditions, and so don't want to work in freezing conditions for the same rate as they could get in warmer places. So, yes, there has to be a bonus to get them to work there, because otherwise they would just work at similar paying jobs in warmer areas.
Quite honestly, I think you replied to the wrong post with this. Nothing you say goes against anything I said to Joining. Actually, all I really said was that people don't all think like he does. I said nothing about what I think about fair wages or corporation financing.
Someone must have missed the part where I specifically state:
Please don't read judgement into that question. It is simply something I always wonder when I hear statements like yours.
Oh, no, you state you did read that, and just can't figure out what it means. You think you have the only valid viewpoint in this matter, so anyone else who doesn't immediately agree with yours is not only wrong, but subversive and deceitful as well. Gee, I've never come across your kind in these forums. (That last sentence is sarcasm, in case your view is too narrow to recognize it.)
As for causality, for all we know, he owns a business with 20 employees that he treats well, and thinks other business owners should do the same.
In fact his last remark of:
The fact is, an employer and an employee inherently have competing interests. Negotiating is a perfectly valid way to resolve competing interests by seeking a middle ground acceptable to both.
shows he has a deeper grasp of the situation than you apparently do. He at least isn't simply jumping on someone he may or may not agree with, based on a narrow mindset based on his own misperceived self-image, unlike you rhywden.
But have a nice day, and thank you for the reply.
Oh look, it's the race-to-the-bottom attitude. "I'm suffering, and the solution is to make more people suffer, rather than to lift everyone up."
Yeah, I hate that liberal attitude towards wealth and jobs too. "It's better if everyone had less, as long as the rich lose more."
Glad to see another enlightened /.er.
So, you are saying you would prefer everyone to not have a job, than for most people to have a job but with some people making a lot more money than others.
There aren't as many lies told as you think. Some are valid critiques of viewpoints similar to yours.
Thank you for the information SynFlood. Mind if I ask a few questions?
1. What type of jobs are these? Someone above mentioned "minimum wage technician job", but I don't think he knows what jobs are actually in dispute here. Are these advanced jobs maintaining the equipment, or manual labor wrench turning and meter reading jobs?
2. What is the comparable pay scale of similar jobs in other areas in Chile? Obviously there needs to be a bonus for working up there, freezing you ass off, but we don't know what the base salary for Chile's tech workers are.
3. Personally, are you a local there in Chile or neighboring country, or are you from North America, Europe, etc, and moved there to work in this project? What about the other workers; roughly what percentage are local or foreign?
I just now read the article linked, and see nothing at all as far as details. Your input would be greatly appreciated.
...with out bathroom or a descent place to eat.... then we can talk
Actually, they probably do have to make a descent to find a place to eat.
Although, why is there no bathroom up there?
Hello. I would like to ask one question of you:
Do you now, or have you in the past, owned a company with employees working for you?
.
Please don't read judgement into that question. It is simply something I always wonder when I hear statements like yours.
Someone needs to take some logic courses. And then some courses on capitalism. BTW, you pay for your text messages? Really?
I think he capitalized that well. I went back over it and looked for what issues.... Oh, wait... Capitalism... Not capitalizing...
Never mind.
When change happens the market does not always react the way that it did.
FIFY. I know most of us are used to the perfect grammer and sintax of the vast majority of Slashdot postings, but sometimes the unwashed masses manage to sneak pst the gatehouse.
Why do you have to bring Outlook into this conversation? What did Outlook ever do to you, anyway?
Not quite. Those numbers are for year-end employment. You would have to go back to 2008 to see how many people worked for the federal government under Bush, since I doubt many were added in the first 20 days of 2009.
So that changes to:
2008: 4,206,000
2011: 4,403,000
There seems to be an increase of nearly 200,000 in President Obama's first three years. In fact, most of the increase seems to have happened almost immediately after he came into office, if 2009 had an increase of 224,000 from the previous year. So federal employment has fallen since the massive increase after Obama took office, but is still higher than under Bush.
Second, government employment has dropped under Obama.
So you are saying that there are fewer federal government employees working for the United States government now than when President Obama took office.
Do you have the facts to back that up? Because I have found sites that show that is not correct.
I think you need to clarify that in year 2013 words like "ultra conservative" in respect to US politics are fucking worthless.
Don't tell me that, you moron, tell the hero of the left, Julian Assange. He is the one that made the statement, I'm just letting you know what he said.
But really, you just can't accept that someone who cares so much about the world (Mr. Assange) would actually praise someone not of the far left. The truth is obvious in your screed. "Not by my definition of ultra-conservative, those damn racist neocons."
Clarification that only an "ultra conservative" would considered ending the TSA, rolling back the state security apparatus, and ending our foreign campaigns of conquest, war, and sabotauge, ending the war on drugs, common sense, and most other gross abuses of state authority.
The Progressives who have held power for at least four years haven't done so, have they? The Democrats are worse than the Republicans were, with increased drone strikes, increased spying, increased TSA presence. You have to accept reality at some point in your life, why not try it right now.
For what it's worth, I voted for Obama in 2008, for several reasons, and last year voted Green Party for a very specific reason. If you weren't so obviously closed-minded, you could vote outside your narrow view as well.